International Accomplishment? Or Perpetuated Sexism?

   

   Recently I came across a couple articles about Bollywood actress Sherlyn Chopra being featured in Playboy magazine. The reason her photo shoot is getting so much hype is because Sherlyn will be the first Indian woman to pose nude for the magazine. Playboy will undoubtedly be using the ‘historic event’ angle to promote this November issue, and Chopra herself has been quoted as calling it an “international accomplishment”. It is kind of a big deal due to the fact that printed copies of Playboy are illegal in India. However, Chopra has since become the subject for a lot of criticism, particularly from the Indian community.

Hugh Hefner & Sherlyn Chopra
pictured in the Playboy Mansion

   In general, women’s relationship with Playboy is already complicated, but this is where it gets precarious. It’s true that Playboy has contributed to increasing visibility for a variety of women’s sexualities and sexual expressions while simultaneously opening up an arena for discourse surrounding these traditionally taboo topics. However, it is definitely worth noting that unlike many other magazines, Playboy blatantly perpetuates the absurd standards of beauty for and objectification of women’s bodies in a sexist market. In a nutshell, men like Hugh Hefner can make a ton of money off of selling pictures of what society considers women’s greatest assets, under the guise of promoting women’s “empowerment” regarding their bodies.

   But this is not the reason for all the opposition to Chopra’s nude Playboy photo shoot. On the contrary, the biggest critique against her is that many people think she’s damaging the “modest and pure” image of Indian women. Because of the increasing expression of concern over this, Chopra’s photo shoot went from being a personal and professional business move to, pinning her as being responsible for representing the image of Indian women worldwide. The criticism means that her display of sexual expression is not only a bad thing for her to do as a woman, but is bad for the integrity of Indian women everywhere.

   The disapproval is remarkably over the fact Chopra isn’t portraying what was referred to as the “Good Girl” code in the Kim et al. study. Through this representation, “Women are judged by their sexual conduct” and “A woman’s clothing, or often, lack thereof also provided clues to her virtue as a person.” (Kim et al. 2007). Also relevant are the Feminine Courtship Strategies. It explains that “Women can/do/should objectify themselves. Exploiting their bodies and looks was portrayed as important, if not necessary”. (Kim et al. 2007). The FCS also describe how “Women are valued primarily for their physical appearance” as media representations of women (such as a Playboy spread) “remind that their physical appearance [is] more important than their intelligence, personality, and other attributes.” (Kim et al. 2007). Chopra’s biggest critiques right now are judging her on her revealing physical appearance, and making assumptions for what it reveals about her moral character (instead of equal consideration for her intelligence as a career woman in the entertainment industry).

   Why is it so common that when a woman does something to publically express her sexuality in a way that she feels comfortable with she’s bombarded with a “slut shaming” backlash? Why is it that over and over one of the biggest critiques of individual women is how they’re negatively representing all women? Sure as a figure in the public eye they should be prepared to experience accolades and harsh criticism simultaneously. And it is true that the crimes against women in India are at an epidemic level (regarding sexual assault, forced marriages, domestic abuse, sex slavery etc.) in a patriarchal society that’s obsessed with controlling women’s bodies, sexuality, and freedom. However, it is completely unrealistic to expect one individual with their own unique qualities, experiences, beliefs, privileges and disadvantages to be able to sufficiently represent an entire ethnic population by their every move. That notion is insane.

   The fact is that Playboy’s perpetuation of unrealistic standards of sexuality for women parallels with the unrealistic standards of purity for women. In their different ways, both are equally sexist because they assign fault to any women who is not able to live up to these erroneous standards. As one of the articles quoted, this is “a particularly toxic brand of nationalism –the idea that a woman’s purity and modesty is the core of her identity as it relates to her culture… It limits the visions women can have for themselves, their self-expression and control over their own bodies and sexuality.” Obviously not all women can and will go running to pose nude in Playboy. But it is incorrect to assume that one woman’s actions set the standard for all women’s actions and/or reflect the values, attitudes, and ideas of other women. In this case, Chopra’s decision was one she personally made thinking it to be advantageous for her self-promotion within her career field.

   The whole situation makes me wonder how it would be unfold for a man in Chopra’s position. If I had to guess, there definitely would be critique along similar lines of an image setting unrealistic standards for men to live up to. However, I think that overall there would be more acceptance of the image as an ideal vision to live up to rather than a negative representation of masculinity. Because of the scrutiny over her actions, Chopra not only has to consistently defend her decision but the means to her achieving this "international accomplishment". In one of the articles she quotes, "I did not sleep with Mr. Hefner. No one at the [Playboy] mansion has till date made an indecent proposal to me. I love my naked skin. Felt quite comfortable displaying my nakedness... that is all." The fact is that because of the sexism rooted in our patriarchal society it is women’s sexual expression that is constantly weighed down with the questioning of her modesty/purity, and that is the reason for most of Chopra’s critique.